Vivisection is
right, but it is nasty - and we must be brave enough to admit this

So, is it OK to sew kittens' eyelids together to stop children
going blind? All too often the arguments surrounding live-animal
experimentation, aka vivisection, circle around the putative
torments of genetically engineered rodents (which no one much cares
about) and monstrous cruelties inflicted on our ape close-cousins
(illegal here anyway). But the story that scientists at Cardiff
University have been studying the way brains react to induced
blindness by 'modelling' the condition in young cats has crystallised the arguments in a way that may end up being very
helpful.

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection says that
raising newborn kittens in total darkness and sewing shut the eyes
of others is not only cruel but unnecessary. Firstly they say it is
possible to study the effects of lazy-eye, or Ambylopia, in human
volunteers (not, presumably, involving eyelid stitching). Worse,
they say, cat brains and cat vision are fundamentally different to
ours and it is hard to see how anything useful can be gained by this
research. These experiments have been done before, many years ago,
and we still do not have a cure.

I have always believed animal experimentation is not only right
but a moral necessity. Put simply, without the use of animals in the
lab we would not have modern medicine. We would have no cancer
drugs, no effective antibiotics, no proper analgesics. Many surgical
procedures would be impossible. Of course medicine could advance on
an ad hoc basis using only humans as guinea pigs but that would
require us to live in a totally alien ethical (not to mention legal)
world.

I have always decried the antics of the loonies, the people who
put letter bombs and faeces through the front doors of scientists,
the activists who make working at any lab involving animal
experimentation an exercise akin to being a member of the RUC in
1970s Ulster. These people do their cause no good.

And one of the main arguments against animal-rights lunacy is the
sheer hypocrisy. Last year, according to the Home Office, 3.8m
'procedures' were carried out on animals in Britain in the name of
science and medicine. There is no doubt that although some pain and
suffering was caused, most of these animal recruits lead better
lives, and certainly better deaths, than the estimated billion or so
chickens, bullocks, pigs and lambs slaughtered in the same period to
provide us with food.

Any argument about animal welfare in the lab is specious in a
nation which still allows battery poultry farming. And yet it is not
quite so simple as that. Even carnivores can see, for instance, that
(say) squirting makeup into the eyes of rabbits in the name of human
vanity is wrong even if we are happy to throw said bunny in the pot
with some onions and red wine. So what about injecting chemotherapy
or AIDS drugs into the veins of the same rabbit to see what happens?
Better than the cosmetic tests, for sure, but on a very emotional
level something feels very different about messing around with an
animal to make us (maybe, one day) feel better and simply killing it
to satiate our meat-hunger (of course as far as the rabbit is
concerned this is angels-on-pinhead stuff).

What would help is a bit more honesty. All too often scientists
and doctors lapse into euphemism and obfuscation when describing
procedures that must be unendurable in a small number of cases. They
often talk about 'discomfort', when they mean 'screaming agony' for
example (in fact too many doctors are prone to do this with human
patients. If this is something that is taught in medical school,
please can it be stopped, now).

Yesterday Cardiff University put out a press release defending
the kitten business which failed to acknowledge or even mention the
grisly nature of the procedure and certainly did not address the
reality that as far as the animals were concerned this would have
been hugely unpleasant. In a world where 1600 animals (the vast bulk
being chickens) are slaughtered every second for food, most in
conditions that do not bear thinking about, it does seem facile to
be considering the 'rights' of 31 Welsh kittens stumbling around
their pens in the dark.

Facile perhaps, but necessary too. The scientists are generally
right; research like this is needed. But they need to be made to
keep reminding us why it is right and to keep justifying procedures
that, without the watchful eye of the BUAV (and, yes, the loonies as
well) would perhaps become so routine that no one would give them a
moment's thought. Animal experimentation is nasty. That does not
make it wrong, but those of us who defend it must be brave enough to
admit the truth, in all its grisly detail.

Dear Editor,

More honesty about this issue would indeed be a great
step forward. Contrary to poorly-substantiated claims often made, the
scientific evidence is quite clear. Of course animal experiments advance
knowledge to some degree, as experiments usually do. Yet this does not mean
that knowledge leads to useful applications, or is worth the costs incurred
in gaining it. In fact, animal experiments rarely contribute significantly
to the development of cures for human diseases.

Recognising the
diversity of opinions about this issue, and further, that opinions alone
constitute a wholly inadequate form of evidence, for such an important and
controversial field, scientists have recently begun calling for -- and
conducting -- large-scale systematic reviews, which critically assess the
contributions of animal models toward human healthcare advancements. These
are reviewed in detail in my recent book, 'The Costs and Benefits of Animal
Experiments' (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). Many of these studies are also
available at animalexperiments.info.

One study published in the
Journal of the Royal Soc of Medicine (Matthews, 2008) is a critical
assessment of the oft-repeated claim that -- Virtually every medical
achievement of the last century has depended directly or indirectly on
research with animals', which is similar to claims made in this editorial.
It is shown to be completely invalid.

Many cures have been developed
for illnesses induced in laboratory animals, at enormous costs in financial,
scientific and animal resources. The problem is that few have successfully
translated to human beings. Our limited public health resources would be
more responsibly spent elsewhere.

You make some sweeping statements yet you don't even
attempt to back them up. My suspicion is because you can't.

Vivisection has nothing to do with 'bravery'. Whether you agree with the use
of animals in medical research or not there is nothing valourous, heroic or
philanthropic about vivisection, never mind how much the vivisectors like to
propagate this appeal. Similarly, it is cruel to sew up kittens eyes and
this needs no qualification.

'Put simply without the use of animals
in the lab we would not have modern medicine.' Well this is laughable. It is
possible medicine would be just as advanced than it is today if not more-
the 92% of drugs that fail safety trials on animals could have gone on to
cure to cancer, but we miss out by relying on species which are
physiologically and biologically quite different. All the years and lives
wasted by the polio vaccine (to mention a classic erroneous belief of animal
supporters) because its side effects were deemed too serious for humans
based upon results on our closest biological species until one eureka moment
and it was realised ah but we humans will react differently! We still don't
have a cure for cancer despite over a thousand cures to artificially induced
'cancer' in as many mice in laboratories and years of endless promises to
keep the money pouring in. In just the same way, over 50 vaccines have been
effective in lab monkeys against HIV but none of thee have translated to a
human vaccine. Maybe this is to do with the fact monkeys don't contract the
HIV virus, you would think wouldn't you?

There again if you think
the alternative to animals in medical research is to use humans as guinea
pigs then you really aren't qualified to write this article and I could rest
my case.

To brand all the scientists, doctors and professors of this
world who sincerely believe in investing in reliable productive methods to
bring true and safe treatments to today's uniquely human conditions that are
so debilitating and tragic for patients and their families as 'loonies' is
outright irresponsible. And when was the last letter bomb and faeces posted/
you need to catch up with the times.

Torture and murder of a billion
animals makes it acceptable to torture and murder another 3.8 million to you
does it? what kind of pathetic excuse is that? If you did your research
before writing nonsense stuff like this you would see that sewing kittens
eyes closed is not right and is not justified today because such experiments
have been conducted since the 1980s and nothing has been gained from them ,
so they are just repeated over and over and it highlights how out of date
and stuck in its ways this industry is that is unable to keep up with latest
developments and technology.

oh my dear mr Michael Hanlon, there is one reason why they are not honest
to the world, It does not bring any benefit to human health by using a
different species, notice eating animals does not bring any benefit either,
both business's supported by some financial gain, notice alone how many
times we have heard, we "think" we have found a cure for cancer or aids in a
mouse which "potentially" could cure the human being, mmmm, Thats been said
for years, why be open about such cruel research, when they have nothing to
show, and never will, if you think i am wrong tell them to prove it,

There is nothing "right" about vivisection. Science without ethics is
lost. Cruelty inflicted upon humans or nonhumans without consent is wrong
and nonhumans can never consent. Stop behaving like "might is right"; leave
the innocents alone.